Re: network unreliable on ReadyNAS 104 with Debian kernel

[Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>]

Hello Uwe,

+Maxime Chevallier and Antoine Ténart, who have also worked on mvneta.

On Sat, 2 May 2020 16:14:08 +0200
Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:

> I own a ReadyNAS 104 (CPU: Armada 370, mvneta driver) and since some
> time its network driver isn't reliable any more. I see things like:
> 
> 	$ rsync -a remotehost:dir /srv/dir
> 	ssh_dispatch_run_fatal: Connection to $remoteaddress port 22: message authentication code incorrect
> 	rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (11350078 bytes received so far) [receiver]
> 	rsync error: error in rsync protocol data stream (code 12) at io.c(235) [receiver=3.1.3]
> 	rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (13675 bytes received so far) [generator]
> 	rsync error: unexplained error (code 255) at io.c(235) [generator=3.1.3]
> 
> when ever something like this happens, I get
> 
> 	mvneta d0074000.ethernet eth1: bad rx status 0e8b0000 (overrun error), size=680

I am also running an Armada 370 ReadyNAS, though with a much older
kernel (4.4.x). It is working fine for me, but checking the kernel
logs, I in fact also have the same issue:

[4141806.620510] mvneta d0070000.ethernet eth0: bad rx status 0f830000 (overrun error), size=1344
[4141821.344100] mvneta d0070000.ethernet eth0: bad rx status 0f830000 (overrun error), size=272
[4141831.098003] mvneta d0070000.ethernet eth0: bad rx status 0f830000 (overrun error), size=896
[4141850.655858] mvneta d0070000.ethernet eth0: bad rx status 0f830000 (overrun error), size=592
[4141850.915259] mvneta d0070000.ethernet eth0: bad rx status 0d830000 (overrun error), size=16

> This happens with Debian's 5.4.0-4-armmp (Version: 5.4.19-1) kernel, but
> I also experienced it with the 4.19 series. On slow connections this
> isn't a problem so the problem might exist already longer. In fact I
> think there are two problems: The first is that the hardware doesn't get
> enough buffers in time for the receive path and the other is that in the
> error case corrupted packets are given to the upper layers.
> 
> Does this ring a bell for you? I didn't start to debug that yet.

I think I do remember seeing reports about this, but I don't remember
if it ended up being fixed (and what we're seeing is some other
problem), or if it's still the same issue. It's been a long time I
looked into mvneta, unfortunately.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com